tactile sensory units, 2

[justlookinla]

Tactile sensory units.

And?

 

[Loudmouth]

And?

Elements of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Elements of evolution.

Explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

Explain.

DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

DNA.

Explain how DNA disproves design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Explain how DNA disproves design.

Elements of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Elements of evolution.

Please explain how elements of design are related to elements of evolution.

Thanks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have justified it, repeatedly. Not just objects, but elements of design are observed.

I challenge your claimed elements of design. Show that non designed items don't have these traits. I do hope you don't think everything is designed.

Circuitry interconnected for a purpose isn't a subjective conclusion, it's a conclusion based on observation of the interconnected purpose of the circuity of the tactile sensory units.

The concept of purpose itself is of questionable existence, so...

Why not?

This is a problem, right here. It isn't up to me to just disprove a position you don't provide a solid foundation for. You HAVE to actually give me a reason to even consider your idea before I or anyone else is obligated to respond. What part of that do you not understand?

I think observation of the elements of design in tactile sensory units is evidence for design in tactile sensory units.

I disagree with what you consider to be elements of design. You have to demonstrate that ONLY designed things have these traits, because if non designed things have them, you are done.

That's why. Complexity, functionality, purpose, elements of design as seen in the circuitry interconnected for a purpose, programming and bi-directional information exchange.

Complexity is subjective, function doesn't equate to purpose, and purpose might not even be real.

I know that those elements are observed.

I don't think 2 of them even exist as real things beyond opinion.

I've observed circuitry interconnected for the purpose of function in tactile sensory units.

No, you haven't, because sir, you have demonstrated you don't even know what an observation is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Please answer the question.

Doncha hate it when a well posed question isn't properly answered?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please explain how elements of design are related to elements of evolution.

Thanks.

Tactile sensory units.

 

[justlookinla]

I challenge your claimed elements of design. Show that non designed items don't have these traits. I do hope you don't think everything is designed.

What specifically are you challenging?

The concept of purpose itself is of questionable existence, so...

Tactile sensory units were conceived, planned and designed to be tactile sensory units.

This is a problem, right here. It isn't up to me to just disprove a position you don't provide a solid foundation for. You HAVE to actually give me a reason to even consider your idea before I or anyone else is obligated to respond. What part of that do you not understand?

I've provided a solid foundation, based on the observation of the elements of design, for designed tactile sensory units.

I disagree with what you consider to be elements of design. You have to demonstrate that ONLY designed things have these traits, because if non designed things have them, you are done.

Again, what specifically do you disagree with concerning the elements of design of tactile sensory units.

Complexity is subjective, function doesn't equate to purpose, and purpose might not even be real.

Complexity, function and purpose aren't the only elements of design present in tactile sensory units.

I don't think 2 of them even exist as real things beyond opinion.

Observation establishes existence.

No, you haven't, because sir, you have demonstrated you don't even know what an observation is.

Sure, I know that I observe elements of design in tactile sensory units.

 

[justlookinla]

Doncha hate it when a well posed question isn't properly answered?

No reason to not to keep asking.

 

[justlookinla]

Tactile sensory units.

Yes, they are designed. How does DNA prove that they're not designed? Of course, there's no DNA at all in some designed tactile sensory units.

 

[Loudmouth]

No reason to not to keep asking.

I am giving you the same answers you gave us.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, they are designed. How does DNA prove that they're not designed? Of course, there's no DNA at all in some designed tactile sensory units.

Elements of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

I am giving you the same answers you gave us.

No, you're playing games. But we'll continue to try to actually have a discussion.

 

[justlookinla]

Elements of evolution.

How does this prove that tactile sensory units aren't designed?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No reason to not to keep asking.

True enough. So why do you rule out evolution as an explanation for the appearance of complexity in the tactile sensory unit of the human hand? After all, many scientists have asserted evolution is capable of providing the appearance of design.

 

[justlookinla]

True enough. So why do you rule out evolution as an explanation for the appearance of complexity in the tactile sensory unit of the human hand? After all, many scientists have asserted evolution is capable of providing the appearance of design.

Why don't you address the observed elements of design in tactile sensory units? If you believe that willy-nilly impetuses created the observed elements of design, why not explain why tactile sensory units are products of chance?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you're playing games. But we'll continue to try to actually have a discussion.

I am givint the same exact answers you give. If the sauce is good for the goose . . .